Warren/Carter (Jimmy) 2016

Love that idea.

I would love to see Carter back in the Whitehouse but he could never be sold as VP due to his age?

Next....

She's not a liberal on many issues.

She states on her website that she supports sending high tech US weapons to Israel.



That last like is very hawkish. She essentially says that she would reject Palestinian statehood at the UN. That is GOP territory.

Also, another DUer mentioned that she recently helped to prevent the Pentagon from canceling an unneeded battlefield communications program. She wanted to preserve jobs at a defense company in Massachusetts:

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=news&id=227

She also voted for the defense authorization act which authorized well over $600 billion for defense:

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/senate/1/284

She also opposes the legalization of marijuana.

http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

How do you think Hillary would have voted on it?

I will not be troubling my head with choosing a primary candidate until I see who actually admits to running. Though I might make a donation to Sanders to encourage him to run, since I think more people need to hear what he says.

But, should the primary choice come down to Hillary or Warren, I will vote for Warren. I am not under any illusion about either of them, but that is what I would do.

Hillary is an even bigger hawk than Warren.

No argument from me there...

I too would probably support Warren over Hillary in a hypothetical matchup.

Senator or Senators. It's a conservatie body. The most liberal of them is still not liberal. Some come do closer than others, of course, but most of them are dying off or retiring.

1. Warren isn't going to run and has said as much on multiple occasions. Plus, there are many who think -- apparently including Elizabeth herself -- that she can do more good in the US Senate.

2. God love Jimmie. But he's too old to run for federal office, let alone be a heartbeat away from the presidency. What happens if he died? In that situation today, John Boehner would become next in line. Only a fool would play with that scenerio.

No offense intended but somebody is not thinking rationally here.

Think back to Gerald Ford. Can't remember if the Senate or the House would approve the next VP in that case. But I agree that Jimmy is a bit old now to weather the campaign, and I think it would be difficult for him to get elected. Ray Gun ruined him. I love Jimmy, but Ronnie was an evil bastard.

1. President.
2. Vice President.
3. Speaker of the House.
4. Senator pro tempore.
5. Secy of State.
6. Secy of Defense.
7. Attorney General.
8. Secy of Interior.
9. Secy of Agriculture.
10. Secy of Commerce.
11. Secy of Labor.
Etc.

This according to the US Constitution (as amended) and the Presidential Succession Act.

If the Vice President and the president are both dead, or are unable to carry out their duties, the third in line is the Speaker of the House.

So why would any rational person put a person of Jimmie Carter's age as VEEP? No matter how beloved. And he deservedly is that and much more. But it is utter idiocy to suggest that he should run for federal office at this time. And he would agree, just like Elizabeth Warren has done, albeit for other reasons.

I call this kind of speculation presidential fantasy baseball. Fun, but just a game. And in the end, an all around worthless enterprise.

Running him as VP is not a compliment after having been President.

hours of each other. Presumably Carter would have a contingency plan in place and be ready to name a VP ASAP. And once that VP became President he or she would name a VP. And so on.

But, I dont think Carter has the energy or desire for a political race, so it's moot. And perception being important, no candidate for President who will be well over 60 on Day One is going to appoint someone older as VP.

they don't say how.

Which bills so far have passed only because of Warren? Or failed only because of Warren.

If none is your answer to both those questions, what difference can you show her absence from the Senate would make?

Sereis-ly, I'm too lazy to check, but he's gotta be in his 90's since he was in WWII.

or something. Give it time...

I've always said that Gore and Dole did not show their wit until after they lost.

When Strom ran for the last time, a talk show host asked Dole if Strom weren't too old to run for a six year term. Dole replied, "If he runs again next time, I'm going to say something."

And yes, it is a ridiculous idea.

Jason is running for governor here in Georgia. And Michelle Nunn is running for congress. And believe it or not, it just was announced on Channel 2 local news that Zell Miller has endorsed her.

That endorsement will help...what a fool he is.

No he isn't my cup of tea but in Georgia he is still quite popular.

350 million Americans give or take. Surely, someone who is not named Nunn or Clinton or Bush or Udall can be found to serve. Elective public office should not amount to a family business.

BTW, has Warren declared already?

Sid

JFK Johnson, Obama Biden. McCain and (gulp) Palin. Youth and experience. Ditto Bush and (gulp) Quayle.

Clinton picked someone in his own age group, but Clinton did present the "heartbeat away" issue. However if you have an older President you have to have a VP almost guaranteed to still be alive and well if and when the President ceases to be able to serve, for whatever reason.

and would like them to cultivate more liberal advisers like Juan Cole and Stephen Cohen. I am sick of Democrats retaining republican foreign policy honchos when there is no evidence of republicans being good at it. Just like trickle down doesn't work. The cold warrior mentality doesn't work either, particularly with regards to Israel.

but didn't he 'over-manage?'

Although selfishly I think we'll keep Gavin here in California for a few more years. Hopefully as governer in 2018. (Although Kamela Harris wouldn't be bad, either)